Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Cosmedin (Rome) - Ciborium.jpg

File:Santa Maria in Cosmedin (Rome) - Ciborium.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2016 at 20:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Cosmedin (Rome) - Ciborium.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Cosmedin (Rome) - Ciborium.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 20:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Seems to be the best photo of this interior found in a Google search, and it looks good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't know if I'm looking at the same picture as the other voters do but what I see is:

• 1) The perspective isn't very fortunate. It's neither central nor is it really a double point perspective. It just looks as there was no space in the middle so the photographer simply stepped at the right. It doesn't look as if the photographer really had a creative concept.
• 2) The top crop is bad IMO because a part of the arc is cut (ok, maybe this alone wouldn't be a reason for an oppose vote).
• 3) The bottom crop isn't good as well because of the cut chairs in the foreground (ok, maybe this alone wouldn't be a reason for an oppose vote, too).
• 4) The whole picture seems to be distorted a little bit, maybe there's some barrel distortion.
• 5) The picture has a severe lack of detail (look at the icons at both sides) which may be caused by increasing the contrast too much and adding too much clarity. It's oversharpened as well which makes the picture look like a painting, at least partially.
• 6) There are some blown out parts at the left and in the background.
• 7) The white balance is too cold (at the top the walls look nearly blue) (ok, maybe that's a matter of taste).

Sorry but do you really consider this to be one of our finest church interiors we're hosting here on Wikimedia Commons? Apart from that, it's a wonderful church which deserves a much better picture. Livio lives in Rome, he could easily go there again and take a much better picture (HDR, central perspective, better postprocessing). A better version would definitely get my support. --Code (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Sorry, I agree with Code. It might be the best image of this church to be found with a google image search, but that isn't the standard we should be aiming for. I also don't find it to be a particularly interesting or beautiful church. That's not the main reason for the oppose though, but it does mean that it should be an even more technically excellent image to have the necessary wow for FP IMO. Diliff (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agrre mostly with Code. Especially the non centered composition bothers me. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Fully agree with Code. Plus the columns on the left lean out in a funny curved way. There is some severe distortion in this shot. Sorry, but this is way below FP standard for church interiors set by Diliff’s masterpieces. --Kreuzschnabel 13:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Can't really add to what Code said. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 23:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)